BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

section 144B of the Act,\nwhereby the assessee's total income was determined at Rs.27,26,42,787/-\n(rounded off to Rs.27,26,42,790/-). The relevant portion of the aforesaid\nassessment order is reproduced as under:\n\n3.1.2 During the year, the assesse has entered into MOU dated 02/01/2017 with PAN\nIndia Infraprojects Pvt Ltd for aggregation

OPG SONS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,SITAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 26.03.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Because the Notice issued u/s 148, the reasons as recorded and the material/ information as relied upon all being self-contradictory, contrary to facts, without verification, the re-assessment framed thereafter is all without

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. SUDHANSHU TRIVEDI, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit V. Sudhanshu Trivedi Lucknow 21/1013, Sector 21 Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ackpt4164G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. Respondent By: S/Shri Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, Cas O R D E R

144B of the Act and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2.3 Now, the Revenue has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by deleting the addition of Rs.1,36,00,000/- made pertaining to claim of Long Term Capital Gain

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

144B of the Act. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 17.10.2023 of the Ld. CIT(A). The relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: - “3. Statement of Facts as submitted by the Appellant The appellant Company

SAMIT GARG,NOIDA vs. ITO 3(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

144B of the Act on 31/03/2022 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.30,92,400/- by making addition of Rs.25,00,000/- under section 68

RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA,PILIBHIT vs. ITO RANGE-2(4), PILIBHIT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrarajesh Kumar Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer Range-2(4), Mohalla- Bakhtavar Lal Baraha Patthar Chauraha Wale, The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Bisalpur, Pilibhit-262001. Nfac, New Delhi Pan:Arlpr2101H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

section 144B of the Act, the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.3,54,323/- as against the returned income of Rs.78,630/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.2,75,693/- was made on account of unexplained discrepancy in opening balance and closing balance of debtors. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order

M.K. WOOD TRADING CORPORATION,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 M. K. Wood Trading Corporation V. The Dcit/Acit-1 10, Basha Khera Lucknow New Takrohi, Indira Nagar Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aarfm2443G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Timber Products. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 10.12.2020 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.54,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment And, Accordingly, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao Finally Issued Show Cause Notice Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Dated 21.3.2022, Vide Which The Ao

144B of the Act read with section 143(3) of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Income particulars Amount Returned Income Rs.54,030/- Addition of difference in closing Rs.13,17,919/- stock valuation Addition on account of unexplained Rs.33,61,040/- loan u/s. 68

KAMALUDDIN,BARABANKI vs. ITO-5(4), BARABANKI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Kamaluddin V. Income Tax Officer 5(4) 339, Satbarpur Barabanki Zaminhusainbad, Subeha Barabanki Tan/Pan:Dlvpk2157M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,01,142/-. 2.3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC and 270A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order

TARDIGRADE HEALTHTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW -UP vs. DCIT, ACIT ,NFAC, NFAC DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,19,79,777/- and made addition of Rs.2,19,79,777/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68

UNIVERSAL WATCH HOUSE,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 Universal Watch House V. The Ito 30, M.G. Marg Faceless Assessment Hazratganj, Lucknow Delhi Tan/Pan:Aabfu0924G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, D.R. O R D E R

section 143(3) read with 144B of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: 1 Total income as per return of income filed by Rs.1,55,620/- the assessee. 2 Income as computed u/s. 143(1)(a) Rs.1,55,620/- 3. Variation in respect of addition made on Rs.6,90,000/- account of unexplained expenditure u/s.69C

INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No.427/LKW/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes while CO No

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Kanpur, U.P. 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.26/Lkw/2024 In A.Y. 2017-18 Ajay Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), 51/92C, Naya Ganj, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Abkpg5651J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Appeal & Cross Objection Have Been Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively, Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 10.05.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ao Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Passed On 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Accepting The Contention Of The Assessee That The Proceedings Made U/S 147 Is Not In Accordance With Law. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Deposited During The F.Y.2016-17 Without Appreciating That The Ao Has 1 Co No.26/Lkw/2024 Ajay Kumar Gupta A.Y. 2017-18

144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. That the appellant craves leave to modify any of the grounds of appeal mentioned above and/or to add any fresh grounds as and when it is required to do so. 2. The grounds of appeal in Cross Objection are as under:- “1. That the L.D A.O Erred

VIPIN DWIVEDI ,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, , NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Vipin Dwivedi V. The Assessing Officer C-272, Nirala Nagar Nfac Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aiapd4894M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

sections 147 and 144B of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Income as per ITR dt. 02.06.2016 : Rs.38,20,100/- Income as per revised ITR dt. 21.10.2016 : Rs.49,32,490/- Income as per ITR dt. 01.11.2022 : Rs.49,32,490/- Addition u/s. 69 of the Act : Rs.3,12,23,018/- Addition u/s. 68

NAND KISHORE SINGH,BARABANKI vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, FACELESS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nand Kishore Singh V. Assessment Unit Jarmapur Income Tax Department Post Barauli Malik Lucknow Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ataps3227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Jain, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

144B of the Act, computing the income of the assessee for the year under consideration as under, vide order dated 25.03.2023: Income as per assessment order u/s/143(3) of the Act : Rs.17,56,730/- Income as computed u/s/ 143(1(a) of the Act : Rs.17,56,730/- Variation in respect of unexplained cash credit : Rs.20,00,938/- Variation in respect

CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 being total cash credit from three parties Rock Heights, Kanchan Bhaiya & Manoj Kumar, addition of Rs.9,00,000/- u/s 69A towards payment to Sri Anil Kumar Modi in Federal Bank A/c and addition of Rs.99,000/- under the provisions of section 40A(3) made in the assessment order and not addressed by the Ld. CIT (A) are contrary

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68,734/- as against the returned income of Rs.16,49,130/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, addition amounting to Rs.71,52,827/- was made by the Assessing Officer on account of ad hoc disallowance out of expenses and a further disallowance amounting to Rs.89,66,777/- was made by the Assessing Officer on account of late deposit of PF/ESI

RAGHAV AGARWAL (HUF),KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraraghav Agarwal (Huf) The Income Tax Officer V. 563, Muir Road, Cantt., Ward-1(1)(3) Kanpur-208004. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aanhr2365C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 02 2025 O R D E R

section 115BBE, in as much as the sale consideration of shares added u/s 68 is neither unexplained nor the explanation /evidences filed have been found to false or untrue, levying an extra tax liability of Rs.52,56,507/-, which is contrary to the provisions of law be deleted. 9. Because the assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT